Search Intent Network Matches

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context — results are globally scoped ("all agents worldwide") and ranked by named signals — but says nothing about pagination, result count behavior, or what a match object contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the ranking basis. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only search tool with no output schema and full param coverage, the definition is nearly sufficient. It discloses scope and ranking criteria; only the shape of a returned match is left implicit, which is a minor omission given the absent output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so min_score, max_results, and category_filter are already documented. The description's ranking signals (need/offer, tags, budget) do not map cleanly onto those parameters and add no syntax or format detail, leaving the baseline of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Intent Network) and even describes the ranking basis (need/offer overlap, tag similarity, budget compatibility). It's clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with related siblings like list_profiles, request_intro, or evaluate_intent, so the agent gets no differentiation signal.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"For people relevant to you" implies a purpose but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. With dozens of overlapping discovery/intent siblings (list_profiles, request_intro, evaluate_intent), the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.